Silver v. New York Stock Exchange

Silver v. New York Stock Exchange
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 25–26, 1963 Decided May 20, 1963
Full case name	Silver, doing business as Municipal Securities Co., et al. v. New York Stock Exchange
Citations	373 U.S. 341 (more) 83 S. Ct. 1246; 10 L. Ed. 2d 389; 1963 U.S. LEXIS 2628
Holding
The duty of self-regulation imposed upon the Exchange by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 did not exempt it from the antitrust laws nor justify it in denying petitioners the direct-wire connections without the notice and hearing which they requested. Therefore, the Exchange's action in this case violated 1 of the Sherman Act, and the Exchange is liable to petitioners under 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black · William O. Douglas Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart Byron White · Arthur Goldberg
Case opinions
Majority	Goldberg
Concurrence	Clark
Dissent	Stewart, joined by Harlan
Laws applied
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890; Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914; Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U.S. 341 (1963), was a case of the United States Supreme Court which was decided May 20, 1963.^[1] It held that the duty of self-regulation imposed upon the New York Stock Exchange by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 did not exempt it from the antitrust laws nor justify it in denying petitioners the direct-wire connections without the notice and hearing which they requested. Therefore, the Exchange's action in this case violated 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the NYSE is liable to petitioners under 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act.

Facts[]

Petitioners, two Texas over-the-counter broker-dealers in securities, who were not members of the New York Stock Exchange, arranged with members of the Exchange in New York City for direct-wire telephone connections which were essential to the conduct of their businesses. The members applied to the Exchange, as required by its rules promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for approval of the connections. Temporary approval was granted and the connections were established; but, without prior notice to petitioners, the applications were denied later, and the connections were discontinued, as required by rules of the Exchange. Allegedly as a result, one of the petitioners was forced out of business and the other's business was greatly diminished. Notwithstanding repeated requests, officials of the Exchange refused to grant petitioners a hearing or even to inform them of the reasons for denial of the applications. Petitioners sued the Exchange and its members in a Federal District Court for treble damages and injunctive relief, claiming that their collective refusal to continue the direct-wire connections violated the Sherman Act.

Judgment[]

This section needs expansion. You can help by . (April 2013)

See also[]

• US antitrust law

References[]

• Godwin, Roger B. (1965). "Antitrust and the Stock Exchange: Minimum Commission or Free Competition?". Stanford Law Review. Stanford Law Review, Vol. 18, No. 2. 18 (2): 213–242. doi:10.2307/1227206. JSTOR 1227206.

External links[]

• Works related to Silver v. New York Stock Exchange at Wikisource
• Text of Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U.S. 341 (1963) is available from: CourtListener  Findlaw  Google Scholar  Justia  Library of Congress  Oyez (oral argument audio) 

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by .

• v
• t